A note on this piece
I’ve taken down this article after being up a couple of days, since following my own review I decided I couldn’t sufficiently evidence one of the points I was assuming. Clearly, I got a bit carried away posting before the end of my own review period!
The article argued that the Bedroom Standard should be factored into ventilation design to help inform occupancy, which remains useful, though it should be considered alongside Approved Document F Volume 1 (2021 edition, England). I also implied Part F was under-sized against Bedroom Standard-driven occupancy. On that, I’m less confident than I was: Part F’s own sizing basis is more generous than I first represented. There was an assumption in my argument of higher moisture load and lower temperatures being more common in social housing, forming a greater potential for a “cold, wet occupancy” profile. This underpinned the article’s call for reviewing occupancy and lifestyle so that each social landlord has their own profile of the moisture load they would expect to manage.
The principle of understanding your residents’ likely moisture (and temperature) profile remains true, but I’ve not managed to substantiate the assumption beyond wide “fuel poverty issues” or “drying clothes indoors”. As a result, I’ve taken down the original article for a redraft as and when I find better evidence - feel free to let me know if you find some!
Apologies to anyone who did read it. The overall direction is fine, but a couple of the specific technical details aren’t precise, so please don’t lean on those.
Andy